Also, the openbsd stack has some essential features missing in freebsd,
like mpls and md5 auth for bgp sessions.
I use MD5 auth for BGP sessions every day (and have been doing so for
several releases). One could definitely wish for better integration -
having to specify MD5 key both
On 2014-07-21 00:24, Florian Smeets wrote:
On 21/07/14 01:46, Steven Hartland wrote:
- Original Message - From: Larry Rosenman l...@lerctr.org
To: Steven Hartland kill...@multiplay.co.uk
Cc: freebsd...@freebsd.org; freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 12:22 AM
Got the following panic this morning
borg.lerctr.org dumped core - see /var/crash/vmcore.5
Sun Jul 20 03:28:12 CDT 2014
FreeBSD borg.lerctr.org 11.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 11.0-CURRENT #50 r268894M: Sat Jul
19 18:06:08 CDT 2014 r...@borg.lerctr.org:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/VT-LER amd64
panic:
Ignore previous, here's the right core:
borg.lerctr.org dumped core - see /var/crash/vmcore.6
Mon Jul 21 03:13:37 CDT 2014
FreeBSD borg.lerctr.org 11.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 11.0-CURRENT #54 r268932M: Sun Jul
20 19:26:23 CDT 2014 r...@borg.lerctr.org:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/VT-LER amd64
panic:
On 20.07.2014 18:15, Maxim Khitrov wrote:
In my opinion, the way forward is to forget (at least temporarily) the
SMP changes, bring pf in sync with OpenBSD, put a policy in place to
follow their releases as closely as possible, and then try to
reintroduce all the SMP work. I think the latter
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 8:56 AM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
Also, the openbsd stack has some essential features missing in
freebsd,
like mpls and md5 auth for bgp sessions.
I use MD5 auth for BGP sessions every day (and have been doing so for
several releases). One could
There is no doubt that PF is a really good firewall, But we should noticed that
there is an ipfw which is originally from FreeBSD while PF is from OpenBSD.
If there is a requirement that PF can meet but ipfw cannot, then I think it is
better to improve the ipfw. But if you just like the PF
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:56:42PM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Hi!
I like it! It's a useful command line API.
Eventually people will realise there needs to be a more formal method
for describing/controlling the underlying framework, but I leave that
up to bapt to figure out and .. well,
Last week, I created a custom ISO from the latest -CURRENT sources which
contained an EFI image that is bootable on my MacBook Pro.
Both installation and booting from this new FreeBSD 11 EFI system goes
without any problems.
Somewhat off-topic, but can you detail how you did this? I've been
Hi Julian,
On 21 Jul 2014, at 05:15, Julian Elischer jul...@freebsd.org wrote:
Most people I talk to just use ipfw and couldn't care whether pf lives or
dies. They have simple requirements and almost any filter would suffice. I
haven't found anything I'd want to use pf for that ipfw
Building some out-of-tree software with a rather long set of compiler
flags, I can reliably get our clang to crash.
The system is current as of r267362 (June 11), with clang reporting itself
as FreeBSD clang version 3.4.1 (tags/RELEASE_34/dot1-final 208032)
20140512
Target:
On 2014-07-21 09:57, bycn82 wrote:
There is no doubt that PF is a really good firewall, But we should noticed
that there is an ipfw which is originally from FreeBSD while PF is from
OpenBSD.
If there is a requirement that PF can meet but ipfw cannot, then I think it
is better to improve
FWIW, and while I still wonder why we need three packet filters …
There is yet another firewall implementation in NetBSD:
http://www.netbsd.org/~rmind/npf/
It seems to be more portable, it is thought with SMP-friendliness in mind and
according to a EuroBSDCon talk ports for FreeBSD and Illumos
i thought the nat in ipfw is as elegant as in iptables :)
but it is good to know that because different opinion actually is a chance to
improve.
and why not share with us why the ipfw nat is cumbersome or how to be not
cumbersome.
-Original Message-
From:
14 matches
Mail list logo
